The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
what to do about isis number 2
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
Because we broke the comments, good work chaps.
Another successful experimentation with ModDB science.
South China Sea? A regional debate that should be left to the players in the region. US is using both Japan and Taiwan to stake some sort of legitimacy in the debate.... while also motoring right up into China's backyard with carrier groups and strategic bombers, typical America fashion. I would love to see just how ape you would go if China and Russia regularly did what you guys do with your naval power. Can just see Russia motoring around Cuba, or Hawaii, with a battlegroup. They don't even though legally they're allowed to, because they know that escalating a situation between superpowers is stupid, something America seems acutely unaware of, especially when they drive right into the Black Sea or Baltic with some Destroyers like a bunch of arrogant buffoons. It's just stupidity to the max.
Well clearly there was no media blackout then was there? If it was just one channel it still wouldn't be a media black out. Comments critiquing the news? What else is new....
Use Yandex with Russian language searches... that's the whole point. It just offers better results than Google does when you hit it up with a Russian query. So for example: Исламская женщина несет голову ребенка в Москве. Plug that into Yandex, and away you go.
Nord-Ost.... you know what, I give up. "SWAT would never gas anyone" Sure... hit them up with the same scenario and see what happens, give them the same gas as well. The reason the Chechens didn't blow themselves up was because of the gas, fast acting, movement neutralizing, and invisible. Your points are completely inane concerning this subject. Moving on.
If you want to discuss false-flagging... It's like the 1999 Apartment Bombings, Americans are so quick to say "Hurrrr Russians killing own people to justify things." But when it's 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, etc. etc. etc. and the absolute plethora of sketchy justifications used for all sorts of other things. "NO! Impossibru, our gov would NEVER do that."
But when it's Russia, pfffft of course!
Am I saying the theater wasn't a false flag? No. But it doesn't strike me as a good scenario for a false flag... the Chechnya wars were over, and Chechnya was under Russian federal control, the Islamic caliphate expelled. A false-flag that leads to nowhere.
"Mostly inaccurate weapons are being used in Syria."
This is crazy, I am losing my mind. Whatever.... you don't want to study up on what's actually being used, you just want people to tell you it's all inaccurate. Sighz... moving on. (FYI I know all about the weapons employed, what aircraft, and what targets, but I was going to leave it to you to find out, so you can imagine this is pretty much torture for me)
Israel is a gigantic mess, made even worse by people who say
Yes Hamas fire rockets at Israel, and Israel airstrikes the Gaza Strip or moves in with tanks every now and then, it's a bloodbath, and both sides are wrong. Journalists that have been there, independent ones, even insist that Israel is prolonging the conflict so as to avoid any sort of solution, and keep up the "I'm a victim" plea. Hamas use human shields.
I use to be hardcore pro-Israel, I changed my tune when I saw some of the things that are simply unjustifiable, no matter the conflict. Reading books like John Pilger's Freedom Next Time have been quite eye-opening concerning Israel.
So Hezzbollah... they're a paramilitary group based in Lebanon, they're good at what they do, and they don't massacre civilians like the "moderate" elements in Syria, nor do they distinguish between ethnicity or religion. Yes, I do not deny they are involved in arms trading, heavily linked with Iran, but that seems to be the extent of it. In the Syria conflict they have only been a positive influence, liberating many towns, and supporting the SAA advance, I would never denigrate this. Outside of that, their business with Israel is their business, the fog of war and the misinformation campaign is far to heavy to distinguish right from wrong there. I don't frankly care about the safety of Israel. They have one of the best militaries in the Mid-East, and they have a huge nuclear stock-pile. Every time they bitch about something I cringe, especially when I know they meddle where they want and when they want, especially when it comes to international perception of Iran. But hey, at least it's an independent policy, which I can respect. Any country that decides its own future rather than letting it be dictated to by Big Brother or anyone is a +1 in my book.
Hezzbollah helping the people of Syria because of history, and they feel an obligation. Yes, good job.
If you want to see me as Pro-Russian, then so be it.
Mutual respect, I can certainly agree with that.
I don't stand by the UN, I think it's a joke. I stand by international law however, although right now, I don't see any coalition that would enforce it without a bias, and no sole-country should ever have responsibility for the governing of how nations wheel'n'deal.
I wasn't blaming the fleet lol. I never blame the grunts. America helmed the UN at that point in time, that's what I'm saying. The Western world was (and still is) fully dominated by Pax-Americana, incapable of making an independent decision on pretty much anything. But to see a US Secretary of State (and hence the US) justify killing 500k kids? Disgusting, vile.
You've evaded the blockade of Yemen though, I noticed, which was the blockade I was talking about you know...
Anyway, I'll read your response, but I am done for now. Cheers for the discussion, it was interesting, if predictable. I kind of jumped in for the humor anyway. xD
Now you see kids, when two larger than life caricatures encounter each other. They can't help but make a scene, in ever escalating drama, about who's more right than the other. Can be either themselves or whatever statement they're defending with such religious fervor it'll make any zionist, crusader, and jihadist blush. It's where you see the unstoppable pork meet the immovable sausage. Otherwise called ham to ham combat.
You chimed in because what was said really grind your gears and you wanted to prove Josh wrong. That's fine, this is the debate group after all. But neither of you will get anywhere when you're doing your damnedest to force the other to conform to the you're point of view. Don't say "it's the only way" and "he won't listen." Those are weak excuses for your stubbornness. This applies to you two large hams. The Russian fanboy from New Zealand in one corner, the cynically patriotic American in the other.
Nah, I jumped in because I had time to kill, and I thought I knew a bit about the subject material being discussed. And for laughs, as well. I don't get in to prove people wrong, that means exactly zero to me, and I don't get any sense of accomplishment from it.
Nice analogy though, I like it.
Ok.
Gee whiz Murauder, you have a way with words...
Am I really that bad?
Yes, the U.S. legacy with Taiwan and Japan goes back a ways. We're their allies in the region which is part of why we're being relied on for muscle.
Now lets keep this in mind...
News.bbc.co.uk
Foreignpolicy.com
The U.S. maintains a careful relationship with Taiwan. Likewise, Japan we played a major role in rebuilding after the Second World War. Which I'm happy we did given how the war ended between us and them, least we could do. So our ties with them are of such extent we call them friends. Even to the point we've deployed fleets when others "attempted" to intimidate them. I would not expect Russia or China to do any less with their close allies.
But our topic here is the South China Sea.
Which is down near the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Granted Taiwan is northern to it. Oddly, Vietnam has actually warmed up to us in the years since the Vietnam war. Regardless of our history with them however, they are signed on as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have warm relations with Malaysia, as they are currently pursuing the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty with the support of the United States. Our two leaders are also known to be close friends. Us and the Philippines, are something I would describe as "family". Our ties go back that far and are that deep. We've even had family fueds! I'd say Indonesia is our weakest link in the region as relations are bit, lukewarm. And Cambodia is a work in progress. And no, I have not forgotten Singapore, they're part of the deal.
These nations are the primary players in the south china sea. Bulk of which we have decent to strong ties with.
As for China's ties with them. Evidently, Vietnam, like the United States, is also pist about China's meddling in the region's waters. Same could be said for the Philippines, Indonesia, pretty much everyone in the South China sea is angry at the Chinese over their attempts to claim it.
Why China is insistent on this is beyond me. All they're doing is pushing countries closer to the United States who says they will protect the sovereignty of those international waters and keep China from barging in.
Our strongest ally is the Philippines in that region, so we're naturally going to rush to their defense and likely heed the call of whoever else cries wolf, because it's diplomatically convenient for us. What do you expect? It's good press, and likewise it strengthens our ties with these countries telling them will protect the sovereignty of their waters. Unlike China who's dropping man made military islands, everywhere...
Now, am I saying the USA should patrol the borders of Chinese waters and likewise rush to intimidate anyone when one of our allies cries out?
It's never that cookie cutter simple. But as a superpower, the United States is a big player in the Pacific, and since World War II it's virtually been our backyard. Given our allies in the South China Sea aren't as capable of defending, nor holding as much political clout in holding their own turf yet. Will naturally be forced to jump to their defense for them to maintain their sovereignty. And as I explained before, it's beneficial for us to do so.
NOW, as for the Atlantic and seas within East like the Black and Baltic Seas, those are not our backyard. I honestly believe Europe and the local powers over there should play a much larger role in those affairs. Europe has this tendency, where they blow most of their money on social programs and ignore their military. Relying on the USA to pick up the bill and be their muscle. Because whether they admit it or not, they rely on us as a sort of Guardian Angel. Doesn't help we pay the tab on NATO. Which I will be honest, frankly irritates me. The U.S. fleets should keep our concerns within the regular routes in the Atlantic and Pacific. AND OF COURSE, others can patrol those regions too, just be aware the U.S. has a large presence in both.
Oh, also fun fact. Your country of New Zealand is also part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Wanna open up trade?
BBC, SKY, and ITV didn't report the story. Feel free to find me a recording on youtube for February 29th if you want. Only channel that did was RT (one you provided).
I'll keep it in mind.
Oh boy... If you knew the toxic atmosphere between citizens and police over here, the moment people suspect police brutality all hell breaks lose in the media. I don't doubt murauder would back me on this. Unlike military endeavors, the media is not in the least afraid of going after cops when they suspect unfair treatment or murder. If our S.W.A.T. did what happened in NORD OST, the media would crucify them, then their would be riots across the major cities in America and retaliation against law enforcement. That's how chaotic it can get over here. Now, I'm not saying that's healthy, I personally despise how the media does that. The only advantage is the awareness we have of the decisions of our law enforcement officials. There is an extreme public awareness.
I'm not gonna fall into that stereotype but I will say that the situation was such a cluster**** there's no real point in me playing super sleuth.
You just described human nature when it comes to nationalism. I do however confess that the Bay of Pigs was our CIA pushed op to deal with the Castro regime, which unfortunately failed. :'-(
There's even been shows talking about that here in America, on tv.
There was still resistance but on the scale that it was during the height of the war, negligible. Troops were being pulled out by the Russians gradually but you don't need a false flag attack to justify keeping them there a bit longer for security. So I agree with you on that, total BS.
Hey, there's a obvious disagreement. I believe that my reason is supportable that Russia will use far less expensive ordnance than the U.S. for this campaign given how long it will likely drag out. Dumb bombs make sense if Russia doesn't wanna end up like us blowing all the money we have on our conflicts in the mideast. Especially if Russia intend to expand beyond their original intentions with Assad.
I will grant you however that the Russian-Syrian alliance has taken back 217 villages, towns, and 1,000 square miles of territory. Strategically, Mr. Putin has forever changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Much to the discontentment of the West. Hey, I'm sure you're jumping in glee at that news.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ah Ah! They're an Iranian proxy do remember! :-D
If Iran wants to shift power to another group or change the outcome of a conflict in that part of the world to their favor, they'll call up Hezzbollah. If that involves targeting people based on their ethnicity and religion, so be it. I won't deny other nations like the Saudis have their own proxies, but honestly this practice in the Mideast really needs to stop at some point.
Key word, "seems".
Black markets, dirty deals, we don't see it all. We never do. But where's there's corruption, don't be surprised when it goes deeper than first observed.
Do remember!
That history, is a history of arms deals, proxy wars, and the usual hateful rhetoric combined with genocidal intentions! Assad aided both them and Hamas. So now, the dirty dealers are returning the favor.
I have no doubt if Assad remains in power, that any future conflicts involving Hezbollah and Hamas will have his support. In other words, they go to war with someone, they'll be getting fresh guns, intel and whatever else they need. No matter who, or what, the target is. Dangerous combination...
There is no point in debate/discussion or whatever you want to call this if there will only be bitter feelings and toxicity. So thank you. :-)
I do not disagree with that in any way.
The blockade had to do with our relations with the Saudis.
Look, I will grant you that the blockade is a injustice in itself. The overwhelming majority of the people being affected are civilians. This wasn't done with U.S. interests at heart but rather that of our ally the Saudis. I do however believe our relationship with the Saudis needs to be rethought, and changed. These are not actions I'd support if I were in office, regardless of international relationships.
We broke the comments? xD I wonder why, maybe it was the continuous and extremely long thread (maybe because of that ModDB couldn't create new pages, and that created the problem).
Well, I might come here tomorrow to answer the replies to my comment there. I wanted to have done it today, but I didn't have the time to write it (I still gotta finish reading the rest of the discussion that didn't involve me. xD).
But well, we broke the comments. Maybe that means we went a bit too far with the debating. xD
I don't believe, in all the time Ive been here.
That a thread has ever gotten that long.
Save for my discussions on the Christian group.
But that would require some digging to find.
It just flatout stopped taking my comments. Coming back the next day though they had all arrived, albeit doubled/tripled up. But yeah, can't say I've come across a thread that long before.
Oh, you click page 2 on there now and the thread is so butchered you can't tell what on earth is going on.
For science!
Later than I wanted, but here it is. This will probably be my last contribution to the debate, it has gone way too long already. xD
Really? Doesn't seem like it. I don't see anyone doing anything (only minor insignificant things) about it. You don't need to fight, you just need to not fight for them. That's it.
There is nothing subjective about providing proper sources and evidences to back up one's allegations.
The chef/food thing was just a comparison. It means that I don't need to be a correspondent to know how they should do they job properly.
Yes, maybe no one will ever have all the information, but I am free to formulate an opinion based on all informations and facts available.
But you take most of their words, which is the problem.
My knowledge of Russian weaponry isn't complete, but from what I know, their weapons are good.
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, that's going to a low level. I called your Government and the High Command of the army (you know, the guys giving the orders) criminals. Low level soldiers have no say in those things.
That's not a general fact. You have a corporate media, they might seem open, but that's a lie.
I read that, did you see who wrote that?
"Shane R. Reeves is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army. He is an Associate Professor and the Deputy Head of the Department of Law at the US Military Academy
Matthew Milikowsky is a Captain in the US Army. He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Law at the US Military Academy."
Once again, that's pretty much they saying that they do a good job. I have no reason to believe in their words.
No court is 100% unbiased, but we must try to make it as unbiased as possible. We don't let Defendants choose the Jury. We also don't let the Prosecutors choose the Jury.
In the end, it's not completely unbiased, the Jury is composed of human beings, with their own personal opinions, which may take them a bit to one side or the other, but we still try to make it as unbiased as possible. Having the Defendants do everything isn't even trying to do that.
So no, the US doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. No one does.
{I never played Killzone, and I only know the basic storyline, so nevermind this if I got it wrong.}
No, because they try to disguise it as much as possible, if they did that, they wouldn't be disguising it.
{I don't know much about Ron Paul, I remember seeing things about him, but I don't remember them right now. So, this answer assumes that you are right about me agreeing with his views}
You answered this yourself: "...his message hasn't resonated yet." That's the problem, until you all wake up and see the lies, nothing will change there, and your government will keep moving forward with their imperialist agenda around the world.
{Not sure if the quote is for the goverment or the people, but since the main subject is the govenment, I'm going with it.}
Everyone is free to make their own mistakes, but there should still be consequences, just like there is for Manslaughter (not sure if this is the right translation to English. I'm talking about murder when there wasn't the intention to kill, when it was an accident, be it because of negligence, incompetence or recklessness).
But I don't see people doing something about it, and supporting the government on its imperialism doesn't help. You can't just sit idly by waiting for things to change.
The thing is: There wasn't. I'm not going to get into detail on the situation, but as I said there, the terrorists did their homework very well. IIRC, this was it: They got all hostages in a room, rigged the pillars with explosives, and the only accesses were through long, easily defensible corridors (there were vents, but those were rigged too or something else).
I never said everyone was evil. But we aren't talking about individuals here, we are talking about the US government as a whole throughout its recent history. In its history, the US has been an imperialist country, that exploited, and exploits, peoples all over the world.
An end must be put to that.
Without getting too deep on it: Patriotism/Nationalism is a stupid concept. Being proud of the place you were born, just because you were born there, makes no sense.
"...loving your country unconditionally" The problem is exactly the "unconditionally" part. Someone criticizes a government and the people from that government's country gets offended. Like you did up there, believing I called everyone criminals.
I know people develop cultural ties, but there's no need for Patriotism/Nationalism for that. Cities and states have their own local "subcultures", and their people also have cultural ties. And there was never a need for "Statialism".
Feelings can't make/achieve anything. Feelings can't not make/achive anything. All that matters is what we do because of and with those feelings.
Fear is not a bad thing, but people lose themselves to it, and make irrational decisions in live and death situations that only lower their chances of survival. Love is a beautiful thing, but some people get so caught up in the heat of the moment, then a lot of things I don't need to put in an example happens, and in the end, the relationship doesn't work.
The same thing counts for hatred. There is nothing honorable and there is nothing dishonorable about hatred. Honor and dishonor lies in how we deal with hatred and the choices we make because of it.
It's fine.
I'll try and wrap up but feel free to input later if you want.
It's either one or the other my friend.
D.C. needs change, and whoever said we're fighting for them when one of our guys signs up? Keep in mind, even if we're not doing it for D.C. we're doing it for those we love at home. Idiotic decisions on part of D.C. is part of why we need a military to protect ourselves from the responses of others out there. And likewise, soldiers who love the people over the government when a time comes for choice, could be very useful. Going to war with your own countrymen, or joining them.
In general you simply said "government" in the original comment you made when referring to them. There was no clarification over the high command to distinguish for the military arm of that body. I do however acknowledge your sympathies later on in that response over your pity for the standard Joes.
Indeed you are! :-D
But that does not mean you aren't subject to pick what you do, and do not want to hear. Personal bias always gets in the way of such things. Like the law, the views of a individual are humanized. There are such people who will often channel out news that doesn't reinforce their viewpoints. Odds are you and I both are somewhat guilty of this. Aw who am I kidding, yeah I'm guilty.
My argument, isn't the capability of Russians to construct precision weaponry. It's that their military has put a focus on cost effectiveness over quality for this campaign in Syria. You really gonna blow a 40,000 dollar smart bomb on a tent with 3 freshly trained Jihadists in it?
The SVP-24 is the only thing I could see the Russians using to compensate for that cost issue when being accurate. It's a significant accuracy improvement compared to totally unguided bombing. It's still nowhere near the accuracy of a proper GPS/laser-guided bomb however.
I agree with the last part. Defendants and Prosecutors shouldn't get to choose the jury. Still, I worry of local customs and laws making their way into the proceedings. Some countries can be very different in how they handle rulings than others. Prefer the prosecutions be done according to international law which I'm everyone with a level head would agree to.
Actually people are starting to wake up. The question is will it be too late or not for us to do something without blood having to be shed. The general consensus among my fellow Americans, the government is in fact corrupt and needs to be changed. We all have differing ideas on how that should be done however. So I advise you keep that in mind when talking to Americans like myself in the future. :-)
Yes, I know. That's a capital offense though do remember when a human life has been lost as a result of murder/manslaughter. Even if said to be unintentional. I don't believe anyone should get off scott free on that.
And you're going off what the military and police said? Remember when you told me that you had no reason to believe my militaries defense when it came to giving them the benefit of the doubt over a court of law?
I don't have to accept their word as truth that the situation didn't have other options to rescue the hostages. I just personally believe someone high up was feeling hawkish when the order was given. The tactical situation may have been tough, but that doesn't mean their were units who had though up other out of the box options. I doubt we'd have heard their ideas after the incident. Would've likely been told to shut up and go with the story there was no other choice.
Just remember there's a fine line between advocating change and then spilling blood. When you walk the line, you've always gotta be self critical of yourself.
Symbolism.
That's the only justification I need to give for patriotism and nationalism.
You took what I said out of context.
But I'll go ahead and say it again for clarification.
Only give your government credit when it honors your people, but always be in support of your country. That doesn't mean I'm gonna defend the government's decisions like I would my country. We have a culture, way of life, and family here. As well as general things us Americans only understand being Americans. That's creates a sense of community among us despite our politics and personal preferences. We love that, and likewise the land we live. Doesn't mean we worship the government, especially when it does wrong. I just wish this logic applied to everyone here.
If there was no hate in this world, if people just operated on a basis of concern and compassion for others. It would be such a better place. Which is why I can never personally view hatred as something honorable, but rather dishonorable. You're free to have your own stance on it however.
Feelings do achieve, albeit through compulsion. If you saw someone on their knees in front of you, would you execute them? Now lets consider this for a moment. What do you think of this person personally? Do you love them? Hate them? The only thing stopping you from acting on that feeling is what self control you have. But even that is not a guarantee you won't pull that trigger, all it takes is the feeling of hate feeding that desire just enough. And the next thing you know, you hear a thump on the ground. You've just ended the life of another human being. Someone with hopes, dreams, ambitions, perhaps even loved ones, a wife and kids.
Now here's what you really gotta self analyze. Do you at all feel abhorred by the action you just committed? This is where we find out just how much hate, has consumed someone. To whether they feel any remorse over they've just done. Or, not a speck of pity, regard for a life being taken. Not even pity for the waste of a life you deemed it to be if you hated them.
In general, the hope is one never has to face a decision like that, ever.
Regardless of the circumstances around this often chaotic globe.
Just two things:
No. I got to that conclusion either because of my own personal research and analysis of the situation, or because of someone else's that I saw somewhere, that I then searched to see if his informations were right. (It was a while ago, but I'm inclined towards the second one.)
What you said, especially those two things, serves to support my point, that honor and dishonor lies in the actions and choices we make because of hatred.
Some people lose themselves to it. Some people let themselves be controled by it. Others don't, some of those even control it.
Consider feelings like being tools. One can use a hammer to build a house, and one can hit someone's head with a hammer. It's not the hammer's fault how it is used.
Fair enough. :-)
My personal hope though is one day, hate will no longer be.
Even as a tool.
Interesting that Ron Paul was mentioned actually, considering his campaign was assassinated by the media.
Not unlike Bernie Sanders to a lesser extent or the Donald (who has the finance to keep his campaign rolling).
Anywhoo, there I go again...
Hey, you wanna talk politics over here feel free.
I'd be happy to tell how things are over here.
Yeah, Paul was assassinated in terms of media bias.
As for Berni, the DNC had already made up their minds to support Hillary back in 2015 and too have the media get behind her.
Breitbart.com
You aware of the FBI investigation into Hillary? I have little doubt Obama will cover her and get her off scott free. That woman shouldn't even be running when under investigation.
As for Trump, even now there are still elements in the GOP trying to stop him from walking away with the run for the presidency. Which means to me they know they can't control him like they could Jeb.
The Libertarian party is also making a rise in the country between the choices we've been left with this election. You'd probably have a easier time agreeing with their stances than either that of the Democrats or Republicans. The Libertarians are where people go when they're tired of the two other sides same old crap. They're getting a lot of press this election cycle thanks to the belief the two main parties are hopelessly corrupt.
Libertarians believe in a more isolationist foreign policy. Not to say will step out of foreign affairs. But will probably never have another Iraq nor Afghanistan again if we can have them consistently in office.
Personally I believe parties be damned.
Everyone should just vote based on the candidates policies.